BOARD00175

• Board Meeting Date: 9/21/1998
• Description: ISF Section - New Appropriations - Notice to Appropriate Instream Flow Water Rights in Water Division 2
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

.

.

e

HELTON & WilLIAMSEN, P.C.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS IN WATER RESOURCES
384 INVERNESS DRIVE SOUTH, SUITE 144
ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO 80112
PHONE [phone]
FAX [phone]

RECEIVED
JlJt n 7 1998

Coloraco IV.:.;c.
Consef\'2.io,-: r..~...

July 6, 1998

Mr. Dan Merriman
Colorado Water Conservation Board
1313 Shennan Street, Room 721
Denver, Colorado 80203

Co

Subject: Instream Flow Recommendation - Texas Creek

Dear Dan:

This letter responds to your June 19, 1998 memorandum concerning the Phase III
recommendations for instream flows on Texas Creek in Division 2. Our finn has several clients
with irrigation, domestic and commercial wells in the Texas Creek basin who were notified last
summer by the Division Engineer that they must comply with the State Engineer's Use Rules
and Measurement Rules. I am concemed that the instream flow appropriations will reduce the
opportunities to use Arkansas River water by exchange as a replacement source for depletions
caused by these existing wells.

For example, the Rainbow Trail Lutheran Camp submitted a request for approval of a
substitute water supply plan to the State Engineer last spring. Rainbow Trail has a well that was
permitted in 1972 which supplies the water for all the in-building uses and for a small amount of
irrigated landscape. We estimated that the consumptive use will be less than 2 acre-feet
annually. Rainbow Trail leased some water from the City of Pueblo and is in the process of
leasing water from a local rancher for replacement water supplies. .The Pueblo water will be
used to replace depletions to the Arkansas River by exchange during the non-irrigation season
and the local water will be used to replace depletions to lake Creek during the irrigation season.

I believe that the instream flow appropriations would block or reduce the opportunity to
exchange small quantities of replacement water up Texas Creek, such as the Pueblo exchange
for Rainbow Trail. The depletions caused by the wells have occurred for many years, however,
the requirement to replace the depletions is fairly new. Without the ability to exchange water
from the Arkansas River, development of replacement sources upstream of the instream flow
reach will be difficult and expensive.

The depletions are reflected in the actual stream flow at the time of the CWCS's
appropriations. Can these depletions be recognized so that the replacement may occur to the
Arkansas River when local ditches are satisfied or not diverting? Otherwise, I will recommend
to my clients that they oppose the application for instream flows on Texas Creek.